GLOBAL REPORT—Expedia’s introduction of the agency model and subsequent negotiations with hotel brands have raised larger concerns from hotel owners regarding the collection of continuing fees and the fiduciary responsibility of brands to represent the best interest of their owners.

At the heart of the issue—which has spurred a group of owners and asset managers to open new dialogue with all of the major brands—is whether franchisors and brand managers should be collecting fees for demand they did not generate but instead was generated by third parties.

“Is the entire model working anymore?” asked Maxine Taylor, executive VP of asset management for The Chartres Lodging Group, which owns nine assets and provides third-party asset management services to five more. “Early on, third parties only drove 1% of our business, but now it’s 10% of our business. Those fees have grown exponentially. Last year, I paid over $1 million in fees on demand driven by (online travel agencies) to one hotel alone.

Maxine Taylor
The Chartres Lodging Group

“The model is going to break.”

For as long as contracts between brands and hotel owners have existed, brands have been collecting a portion of rooms revenue. The percentage varies depending on whether the brand only serves as a franchisor or also manages the property.

But as more room demand is driven by third parties, owners and asset managers are beginning to question why they pay fees on demand that is not driven by the brand. The Expedia Traveler Preference program brought the issue to light to owners because collecting gross revenue at the hotel rather than net revenue after commissions will lead to an increase in fees owners pay to brands although the revenue achieved by the hotel is the same.

Rethinking contracts
“Owners need to rethink the definition of revenue in their management contracts,” said Michelle Russo, president of HotelAVE, an asset management and ownership company, who authored a whitepaper saying the ETP program could benefit management companies and brands to the tune of $81 million in increased fees. “Is it appropriate to pay marketing fees on all of the revenue or just the revenue generated by the brand? No one really thought about it when they were negotiating their contracts.”

“Hotel owners, when they negotiate new management contracts, really need to think about this given there’s not one source of demand anymore,” she continued. “Each of these channels have different costs associated with them, and as an industry, we need to address whether the traditional 3% is appropriate, or do we need to move to more of a base fee that is related to profit generation not revenue generation.”

Michelle Russo
HotelAVE

As an example, instead of paying 5% to the brand on all revenue, Russo suggested a model where owners would pay 6% on revenue generated by the brand and 4% on revenue driven by a third party. Or even 10% on revenue driven by the brand and 0% on revenue driven by a third party, she said.

“I think everything is on the table. It is not my view that franchise fees should stay static,” she said. “We should incent our brands to align with us. If they have the best channel, I would be willing to pay them more and a lot less for revenue they didn’t generate.”

Many of the larger brands declined requests for comment on this topic. Marriott International, which has signed an agreement and began rolling out the ETP program in October, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Scott Carman, director of customer marketing communications for Hilton Worldwide, which has signed the agreement but delayed rollout after receiving owner reaction, declined comment. An executive with Hyatt Hotels & Resorts declined comment, citing ongoing negotiations with Expedia.

Flo Lugli, executive VP of marketing for Wyndham Hotel Group, provided the following statement: “Given that we are in negotiations with Expedia, it is inappropriate for me to speak specifically. Generally, however, Wyndham welcomes discussions around new opportunities and models that can drive additional value to our franchisees/owners, and we look forward to understanding from Expedia how they view this program can do just that.”

However, both Taylor and Russo said the large brands have been listening to their concerns and have even made attempts to go back to the negotiating table with Expedia. The goal for brands is to get Expedia booking margins lowered further so that the net result of the ETP program would not be a loss in profit for owners, they said. Expedia spokesman Adam Anderson confirmed that both Marriott and Hilton have signed agreements to participate in the program, but the timetable for rollout is up to the brands.

Bigger issues
Franchise and management fees are only one of the issues owners have with Expedia’s agency model. In addition, making the hotel the merchant of record also burdens the hotel with credit-card processing fees and relinquishes OTAs from the municipality tax issue.

Jim Butler, an attorney with the Jeffer Mangels Butler and Mitchell Global Hospitality Group who regularly oversees hotel-management agreements, said brands who also act as managers have certain fiduciary duties that are imposed by law, including preferring the owners’ interests over their own. He said larger commissions and increasing market share for OTAs “raises the issue to a different level” and brings to light “a circumstance that no one ever anticipated” when negotiating management contracts.

Russo said even if brands agreed to a change in the way fees are collected, it is difficult to get management contracts amended mid-term (some can be as long as 50 years). Butler, however, said amending them would be as simple as a policy change.

“They could just do it as policy, assuming it is a fiction that the hotel receives the (gross rate),” he said.

As far as Expedia is concerned, the business model of negotiating with brands on behalf of owners is best for all parties involved. Expedia CEO Dara Khosrowshahi told HotelNewsNow.com he thinks the brands represent the owners “quite well.”

“A hotel owner through a brand can usually work with us at a lower margin than an independent, which reflect the kinds of negotiations that we have with the big brands,” he said. “We have deep relationships with them; we’ve been working with them for years, but I’ll tell you those negotiations are not easy negotiations.

“We’ve been partnering up with the brands for some period of time,” Khosrowshahi continued. “We have been talking to owners; we want to establish long-term relationships with some of the larger ownership groups, but in general the brands are who we work with and we expect that to continue going forward.”

Regarding comment by Rvanderbeek - Roomkey is simply a smaller version of the same OTA model - with the absence of the consumer brand awareness and rich media / traveler specific content that consumers want when planning for their travel and the inconsistency of the user experience will be a turn off to some users and negatively impact conversion - Don't get me wrong, its a great idea....one that the OTA's came up with and have perfected. Perhaps that is why their Cheif Marketing Officer came from an OTA.

Rvanderbeek
11/30/2012 9:58:00 AM

This discussion boils down to "What´s the value of the brand"
The brand is part of the OTA´s selling proposition and thus should be (partially)rewarded for this. In the end it is not the OTA that build its brand, it´s their customer adopting it. Initiatives like Roomkey are important to challenge OTA growth. For the owner´s out there, there are already global hotel chains offering flexible pricing!

AN OTA
11/30/2012 9:57:00 AM

The Brands lack the required expertise in the Online Space - it is not a trivial effort/business, and it is unlikely that a BRAND could develope or integrate the technology as well as the OTA leaders and at teh same "cost" so I suspect using the OTA is in the end means lower fees (Buidl vs. Buy). That said, I feel for the owners, and I support Net Revenue models over gross booking volume/value - we are in this together and our life blood is the satisfasaction of our travelers from shop to reconciliation after checkout. If anyone of the stakeholders fail to deliver, or expose our dislike for our business model to the end consumer, we will be only be poisoning our own well.

mcarrier
11/30/2012 7:16:00 AM

What most hotel owners don't realize is that the OTA's have already effectively turned us into commodoties in the eyes of the consumer. With the move towards the agency model and the growth of their own loyalty programs they are now moving from weekend leisure directly into mid-week cororate business. Just read their 10k reports and the Wall Street analysts. The brands will continue to cede marketshare to these entities at increasing cost and margin loss to the owners. The white paper sponsored by the hotel asset managers should be read by every hotel owner. Just realize that the lost asset value is far greater.

Comments that include links or URLs will be removed to avoid instances of spam.
Also, comments that include profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, solicitations or advertising, or other similarly inappropriate or offensive comments or material will be removed from the site.
You are fully responsible for the content you post. The opinions expressed in comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Hotel News Now or its parent company, STR and its affiliated companies.
Please report any violations to our editorial staff